# Sri Kant Chaubey & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1362
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-08
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 32145 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-kant-chaubey-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44673
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Art. 14 -
Administrative action tested on the anvil
of Art. 14 - Exercising administrative
power calls for due application of mind.
(Para 14)

B. Finding of fact - Perversity - Complete
lack of material to demonstrate that the
work of installment of hand pump was
illegal. finding of facts is absolutely
perverse - Could not have reached
conclusion as to misappropriation of
funds. (Para 25)

C.
Principles
of
natural
justice
-
Consideration
of
objection
and
it's
evaluation
are
part
of
procedural
safeguards
even
in
matters
of
administrative inquiry -

Held:- Failing consideration, order can be
rendered to have been passed in violation of
natural justice. (Para 26)

Writ Petition allowed (E-1)

Case law relied: -

## Text

1362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evaluation of the same in correct
perspective. In other words there has to
be objective consideration of the reply in
so far as issues are concerned in order to
record the complete satisfaction not only
to make the order reasoned one but
legally enforceable on the norms of
principles of just and fair play. We find all
these aspects quite lacking in the order
impugned and again being confronted
with the said legal position, learned
counsel for the Pollution Control Board
says that the matter can be revisited by
the competent authority."

12. In view of the above exposition
of law and the attending facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, we are
of the opinion that unless the reply is duly
considered it cannot be said that there was
due application of mind by the authority
concerned
and
therefore,
in
our
considered opinion, the matter requires to
be revisited by the authority.

13. In view of the above, the orders
impugned dated 02.09.2019, 04.09.2019
and 06.09.2019 are hereby quashed.

14. The respondents are directed to
consider the explanation submitted by the
petitioner to the show cause notice and
pass order afresh within a period of four
weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

15. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2019)11ILR A1362

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 32145 of 2008

Sri Kant Chaubey & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Babu Nandan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dr. D.K. Tiwari

A. Constitution of India - Art. 14 -
Administrative action tested on the anvil
of Art. 14 - Exercising administrative
power calls for due application of mind.
(Para 14)

B. Finding of fact - Perversity - Complete
lack of material to demonstrate that the
work of installment of hand pump was
illegal. finding of facts is absolutely
perverse - Could not have reached
conclusion as to misappropriation of
funds. (Para 25)

C.
Principles
of
natural
justice
-
Consideration
of
objection
and
it's
evaluation
are
part
of
procedural
safeguards
even
in
matters
of
administrative inquiry -

Held:- Failing consideration, order can be
rendered to have been passed in violation of
natural justice. (Para 26)

Writ Petition allowed (E-1)

Case law relied: -

1. Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs Union of India &
anr. (Civil Appeal No. 9043 of 2014 decided by
Supreme Court on 22.09.2014)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Babu Nandan Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
3 All. Sri Kant Chaubey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1363
learned Standing Counsel Dr. D.K. Tiwari
representing the State-respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioners have assailed the order dated
02.06.2008 whereby a recovery of Rs.
2,80,007.00/- has been ordered. The
petitioners have challenged the said order
on the ground that the said order is passed
on a report dated 18.01.2008 submitted by
a four member inquiry committee holding
the petitioners liable for misappropriation
and embezzlement of an amount to the
tune of Rs. 2,80,007.00/-. The petitioners
submit that the second inquiry into the
charges was totally unwarranted and was
maliciously instituted for the reason that
an earlier three member committee had
conducted an inquiry and had submitted a
report on 20.01.2007 in which, in respect
to the same charges, the petitioners were
not found to be guilty and it was only in
respect of a sum of Rs. 44,194/- that the
audit was directed to be conducted as the
work regarding this much of amount was
not found to have taken place on the spot.
The committee of which the petitioners
were members was granted time till 15th
of August, 2007 to get the work audited
and submit the relevant vouchers so as to
enable the committee to form a final
opinion in respect of the said amount. The
petitioners thereafter got the work audited
by C.A. Narayan Kumar Agrawal & Co.
which submitted its report on 14.8.2007.

3. The argument is that instead of
considering the said report in respect of
the amount in question for which the
petitioners were required to submit the
audit report, a four member inquiry
committee
got
constituted
which
conducted the inquiry de novo which was
quite unwarranted in the given facts and
circumstances of the case nor, the
petitioners were communicated about any
such new constitution of the inquiry
committee. So it is also a case of gross
violation of minimum compliance of rules
of natural justice.

4. Per contra, the argument
advanced by learned Standing Counsel is
that it was a fact finding inquiry
conducted by earlier three member
committee
and
even
though
the
petitioners were absolved of the charges
enumerated therein, yet in matters of
administrative enquiry there was no bar
for the committee to re-consider the entire
aspect of the matter while considering the
audit report. He submits that the inquiry
committee has not only conducted spot
inspection and took stock of the situation
regarding the work carried out on the spot
but even verified things from the records
and
have
returned
findings
of
misappropriation of public fund. He
submits that it was the onerous duty of the
committee to have ensured that the work
assigned was translated into action on
ground and the committee having not
found so, the petitioners were liable to be
saddled
with
liability
of
misappropriation/embezzlement of public
fund which was chiefly meant to be spent
in public interest under the development
plan.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and their respective arguments
raised across the bar and having perused
the entire records placed before this Court
through writ petition, counter affidavit
and the pleadings raised by respective
parties, we find that the core issue that
has been raised before this Court is
whether it was open for the respondent to
have constituted a new committee to hold
an inquiry de novo whereas the inquiry
1364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
committee earlier constituted had already
conducted an inquiry and had absolved
the petitioners of the charges.

6. One more issue which has been
raised is of non-compliance of principles
of natural justice both in the matter of
constitution of new inquiry committee
without informing the petitioners and
without giving them any participation in
the inquiry. For examining the above two
issues it is necessary to draw the facts of
the case in a narrow compass.

7. As the pleadings have come to be
raised and undisputed facts are that
Central Government sponsored a scheme
for supplying potable water in rural areas
styled as 'Jal Nidhi Pariyojna' popularly
known as ' Rajiv Gandhi Pay Jal Mission'.
In order to implement the said scheme in
the State of U.P., some districts were
selected by the State Government and the
State Government made 'Zila Prabandhan
Pariyojna Ekai' and constituted at village
level 'Gramin Pay Jal Evam Swachhata
Samiti'. The task of the Samiti was to
utilize provided fund in laying down
pipeline and setting up hand-pumps, minipumps and their repair work. The
petitioners who constituted the Samiti
were provided with a chart work to be
carried out by them in village Kodaria of
development block Sakaldiha, District
Chandauli.

8. From perusal of the work chart,
which has been appended as Annexure
No.2 to the writ petition, we have found
that there were locations provided for
setting up of the hand-pumps. The
petitioners
carried
out
work
and
submitted their reports. Spot inquiry was
conducted initially in a summary manner
and the petitioners were issued with a
show cause notice on 21.05.2007 that on
the basis of a survey carried out prima
facie case of misappropriation of public
fund to the tune of Rs. 3,99,666/-
appeared to be correct. The petitioners in
response to the show cause notice,
submitted their reply on 08.06.2007.

9. A three member committee was
constituted
consisting
of
District
Development Officer, Chandauli, District
Earth Evam Sankhya Adhikari, Chandauli
and Junior Engineer, District Village
Development
Corporation,
Chandauli
Abhikaran. The said committee visited
the spot where the development was
carried out on 20.07.2007 and submitted
report according to which Jal Nidhi Yojna
was
provided with budget of Rs.
5,47,969.00/- and consuming the said
fund, in all, ten hand-pumps were
installed and repair work was conducted
in respect of six hand-pumps and one
hand-pump was re-bored; a pond was dug
up and two mini water supply lines were
laid; regarding hand-pumps and handpump work, the hand-pumps were found
to be installed in places in respect of the
persons. However, two hand-pumps were
found to be inside the boundary walls of
S.K.
Chaube
and
Umrao
Singh
respectively. However, the neighbours
informed that they were never stopped
from taking water from the said handpumps. Regarding repair of the handpump work, only one hand-pump was not
found in working order. Regarding mini
water supply lines, it was detected by the
committee that pipeline was laid and
overhead tank was constructed but since
the scheme had come to an end and no
further
budget
was
provided
by
Government of India and so connection
could not be given. Regarding the re-bore
work, the report made no adverse remark
3 All. Sri Kant Chaubey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1365
and regarding the digging work of the pond, the
report was that the measurement and assessment
could not be made because the pond was full of
water. However, it was reported that the villagers
admitted that pond was dug up. Thus, the threemember committee in its ultimate conclusion
arrived that in respect of Rs. 44,194/-, the work
was not found on the spot and therefore, the
petitioners were directed to get the work audited
and submit the audit report for consideration of
the committee.

10. In the considered opinion of the
Court, the above report as discussed
hereinabove submitted on 20.07.2007 by
the three-member committee sufficiently
demonstrate that the only issue was in
respect of fund of Rs. 44,194/- regarding
which the work was not traceable on the
spot and the petitioners were virtually to
explain their position by getting the work
audited and submit the report and it is in
this regard that the work got audited by
them and the CA firm N.K. Agarwal &
Co. submitted its report on 14.08.2007
and was forwarded by the petitioners. It
appears that after the said report was
submitted, the Chief Development Officer
vide
some
letter
dated
22.11.2007
constituted
a
new
four-member
committee, this time having Assistant
Engineer of District Rural Development
Authority, Chandauli as also one of the
members for holding a de novo inquiry
into the matter. The report was submitted
on 18.01.2018 by the said committee and
this time, the committee found the
petitioners
to
be
guilty
of
misappropriation of public fund meant to
be spent under the scheme at the hand of
the committee, to the tune of Rs.
2,80,07.00/-.

11. We find that this time regarding
the mini water tank pipeline supply, the
committee submitted a report that though
overhead
tanks
were
prepared,
constructed and established but the
pipeline was not laid and nobody was
offered connection and that the land was
not handed over to the Ground Water
Management Committee whereas during
the earlier inquiry, it was ordered that it
will be handed over to the Ground Water
Management Committee and thus in
respect of both the projects, the work was
found to be only half way done resulting
in complete loss of Rs. 2,75,507/- alleged
to have been spent by the committee on
the said project. Regarding the handpump it was reported that the hand pumps
were installed on the land of the
respective villagers and that no soak-pit
was found in respect of the hand-pump.
Regarding other works, no further adverse
report was there but in respect of digging
up of pond, it was assessed that there was
irregularity during the digging work.

12. Coming to the first argument
raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners that once an inquiry was
completed and report was submitted and
the petitioners were required to submit
audit report with respect to an amount of
Rs. 44,000/- only, there was no occasion
to
constitute
another
committee
to
conduct inquiry de novo into the alleged
charges, we find the argument raised by
the petitioners having merit for the
reasons hereunder.

13. From a bare reading of the first
inquiry report dated 20.07.2007, it is
clearly revealed that in respect of all the
five charges, all the works that were to be
taken by the committee that consisted of
the petitioners except for reporting doubts
in respect of expenditure incurred in
digging of the pond, there was no adverse
1366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
report regarding other works. In so far as
the digging work of the pond is
considered, report was not that it was not
done, instead, the report was that proper
evaluation could not be done of the
expenditure
incurred
in
the
pond.
However, in the totality of the scenario
that
the
committee
arrived
after
conducting spot inspection, it found the
only work not done in the form of prima
facie opinion against Rs. 44, 194/- shown
to have been spent and to that extent only,
the petitioners are right in asserting, the
committee permitted the petitioners to
submit documents.

14. Under the circumstances, we are
of the considered opinion that it can be
safely concluded that the respondent did
not find petitioners guilty in respect of Rs.
5,89,774/- shown to have been spent on
the project undertaken by the committee
consisting of the petitioners. In such
circumstances, when the committee did
not make the inquiry to continue while
submitting its report dated 20.07.2007,
there was no occasion to conduct another
inquiry into the same charges by
constituting a new committee. We further
notice that in reply of the audit report
submitted by the petitioners regrading Jal
Nidhi Project, as sought for under the
earlier report, the subsequent committee
did not discuss the same at all and it
appears that the committee was virtually
reconstituted now with four members to
hold
an
inquiry
de
novo.
An
administrative action is required to be
tested at least on the testing anvil of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Exercising
administrative
power,
therefore, calls for a due application of
mind where at least the authority is to test
as to whether any past action at its end
requires reconsideration.

15. The perusal of second inquiry
report submitted on 18.1.2008 does not
discuss the earlier inquiry at all nor, does
it discuss the reasons why the new inquiry
was ordered. All that is discussed is that
under the orders passed by Chief
Development Officer dated 22.11.2007,
the inquiry was to be conducted and was
being conducted. Further, on facts, we
also find that the inquiry regarding mini
water tank pipeline supply and hand
pump and also about the digging of pond
turns out to be absolutely contrary to what
was
found
in
the
earlier
report.
Interestingly, both the reports are based
on spot inspection. The earlier committee
that consisted of three members namely
District Development Officer, Chandauli,
Junior
Engineer,
District
Village
Development
Board,
Chandauli
and
District Finance and Accounts Officer,
Chandauli, if found on the spot that handpumps were correctly installed and that
the pipelines were laid and water tanks
were constructed but connection could
not be given on account of paucity of
fund and annulment of scheme, we fail to
understand as to how these two same
officers namely District Finance and
Accounts Officer, Chandauli and Junior
Engineer, District Village Development
Board,
Chandauli
found
altogether
different picture in the second spot
inspection. This shows that either the
earlier report is to be doubted or the
subsequent one is to be doubted for
malafide actions or the report was
submitted for extraneous considerations.

16. However, there appears to be no
justification for such administrative action
by the District Development Officer to
constitute another inquiry committee and
hold inquiry. Second inquiry committee
can only be constituted either at the
3 All. Sri Kant Chaubey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1367
instance of the persons concerned who
have
grievance
with
the
inquiry
committee or if the earlier inquiry
committee has abandoned its task half
way or if there is a report of complaint
regarding the conduct of affairs by the
members of inquiry committee already
constituted. None of the above points are
found in the present case and, therefore,
the petitioners are right in submitting that
there was no occasion to constitute
another inquiry committee. We further
find that there being no complaint
regarding the findings returned by the
earlier inquiry committee, there was no
occasion to hold another inquiry de novo
into the charges nor, do we find anything
coming in the counter affidavit justifying
the second inquiry committee. In such
circumstances, therefore, we are of the
opinion that constitution of the second
inquiry committee was absolutely illegal
and also on facts quite unwarranted.

17. Besides above, the findings as
have come to be returned by the second
inquiry committee has been absolutely
contrary to the one submitted by the
earlier inquiry committee. We fail to
understand as to how the same officers
submit
two
inquiry
reports
while
conducting two spot inspections of the
same place. If the hand-pumps were
installed in the house or in the boundary
or over the land of residents of the
village, it should have been come in the
very first inquiry report itself but what we
find is that except for the two houses,
second inquiry report also does not state
as to which plot number, the hand pump
was installed and it could have been said
that the hand pump was installed at a
particular place. In the absence of such
cogent material being discussed by the
inquiry committee, the findings returned
by the inquiry committee to that score is
liable to be set aside.

18. We further find that in respect of
laying down of pipeline, the inquiry
report is absolutely incorrect, the reason
being that in the first inquiry report, it has
come to be recorded that because of
paucity of fund due to annulment of the
scheme, water connection could not be
given. The second inquiry committee
does not discuss the first inquiry report
and does not hold that the first inquiry
was in any manner incorrect and,
therefore, the finding to that effect in the
second inquiry report cannot be sustained.
Similarly, we find that with respect to the
digging of the pond, the second report had
simply expressed doubts. There is no
material discussed nor any cogent or
conclusive finding of fact has been
returned as to how the digging of the
pond could have been doubted.

19. Coming to the second question
that the entire proceedings of inquiry
conducted by the committee was against
the principles of natural justice, we find
that the recitals made in the inquiry report
are only reflective of the presence of the
petitioners but are not reflective of any
discussion being held on the spot with the
petitioners or that any statement of the
petitioners was recorded.

20. In the absence of any such above
event having taken place during inquiry it
can be safely concluded that there was
hardly any participation of the petitioners
in the inquiry and to that extent the
inquiry was violative of principles of
natural justice. We further find that the
petitioners after they were supplied with
copy of the inquiry report along with
covering letter on 23.2.2008 to show
1368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cause on the findings of the joint inquiry
committee, the petitioners did submit
reply on 10.3.2008 reiterating the reason
for which the connection could not be
given.

21. It is further argued that in the
earlier inquiry conducted, the petitioners
were exonerated of the charges and they
were only required to submit the bill and
vouchers which were submitted on
8.6.2007 itself and, therefore in respect of
other charges, no further action was
required to be taken except considering
the petitioners' reply of submission of
vouchers etc. in respect of Rs.44,000/-.

22. From perusal of the second
enquiry report, we find that the above
reply of the petitioners has been brushed
aside
simply
on
the
ground
that
petitioners had not been able to explain as
to why and under what circumstances
water pumps were installed in the
personal land of Madan Prajapati and
Arun Kumar and merely the proceeding
on the basis of these two facts coupled
with the charge that petitioners had not
been able to render explanation regarding
non-construction of the soak-pit, the order
of the petitioners have been saddled with
the liability of misappropriation of fund to
the tune of Rs.2,80,00,07/-.

23. Having carefully examined the
order impugned, we further notice that the
District Development Officer Chandauli
has simply proceeded to rely upon the
second inquiry report while passing the
order.

24. A pertinent question was raised
in their reply to the show cause by the
petitioners that once they had been
exonerated in the first inquiry, that
inquiry
report
should
have
been
considered and the earlier liability was
limited to Rs.44,000/- but nothing of the
sort has been discussed in the order
impugned. We further find that a lot of
work was shown in the earlier inquiry
report to have been performed and so
budget was sanctioned for the purpose but
merely because two hand pumps were
found on the land of two neighbours,
petitioners have been held guilty of
misappropriation of the entire fund.

25. In our considered opinion, such
a finding of fact is absolutely perverse
because there is no such material
available to demonstrate that all the work
of installment of hand pump was illegal
or that the particular plot number on
which the hand pumps were installed
particularly relating to Arun Kumar Singh
and one Madan Prajapati were against
norms and resulted in misappropriation of
funds. We further find from the work list
that mini pipeline was laid near the
houses of Madan Prajapati and Arun
Kumar Singh and this is not disputed. In
the second inquiry report, it is stated that
there was no pipeline laid whereas in the
earlier inquiry report it was found that the
pipeline was laid but connection could not
be given due to paucity of fund and
annulment of scheme. The two contrary
reports if are read together, the finding of
not granting water connection to any one
is absolutely baseless and further the
second inquiry report shows that the
connection in front of the houses of
Madan Prajapati and Arun Kumar Singh
which is supported by the work list. Had
the authority passing the order dated
2.6.2008 evaluated the two reports in
correct perspective of the entire scenario
regarding the development work carried
at the end of the petitioners, it would not
3 All. Sri Kant Chaubey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1369
have come to the conclusion as arrived at
under the order impugned holding the
petitioners guilty of misappropriation of
funds.

26. The consideration of the
objections
are
part
of
procedural
safeguards
even
in
matters
of
administrative inquiry. While opportunity
of oral hearing may not be prescribed for
in every case but non consideration of
objection/reply by the authority passing
the final order on the basis of the inquiry
report which should have been disputed
and doubted, cannot be approved of. The
legal principle involved in the recent past
two decades are clearly in favour of the
law that consideration of reply and the
objection
and
its
evaluation
and
appreciation in respect of the charges or
the issues sought to be decided is a must,
failing which, the order can be rendered
to have been passed in violation of
principles of natural justice.

27. Even otherwise, the settled legal
position is that in the administrative decision
making process, the authorities require to
adjudicate the points involved rendering due
application of mind to the charges, the inquiry
report received and reply submitted by the
charged officer. However, all these aspects we
find lacking in the order impugned and
therefore, in our considered opinion the order
dated 2.6.2008 deserves to be quashed.

28. In a matter of second enquiry,
though in a disciplinary proceeding, the
Apex Court in 'Vijay Shankar Pandey
vs. Union of India & Anr.' (Civil Appeal
No. 9043 of 2014 decided on 22.09.2014)
vide para 21, 22 and 23 had held that:

"21. Be that as it may, the
question is whether the disciplinary
authority could have resorted to such a
practice of abandoning the Enquiry
already
undertaken
and
resort
to
appointment
of
a
fresh
Enquiring
Authority (multi-member). The issue is
not
really
whether
the
Enquiring
Authority should be a single member or a
multi member body, but whether a second
inquiry such as the one under challenge is
permissible. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in K.R. Deb v. The Collector of
Central Excise, Shillong, (1971) 2 SCC
102, examined the question in the context
of Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1957. It was a case where an
enquiry was ordered against a sub-
Inspector, Central Excise (the appellant
before this Court). The inquiry officer
held that the charge was not proved.
Thereafter the disciplinary authority
appointed another inquiry officer "to
conduct a supplementary open inquiry".
Such
supplementary
inquiry
was
conducted and a report that there was "no
conclusive
proof"
to
"establish
the
charge" was made. Not satisfied, the
disciplinary authority thought it fit that
"another
inquiry
officer
should
be
appointed to inquire afresh into the
charge".

22. The Court held that:

"12. It seems to us that Rule 15,
on the face of it, really provides for one
inquiry but it may be possible if in a
particular case there has been no proper
enquiry because some serious defect has
crept into the inquiry or some important
witnesses were not available at the time of
the inquiry or for some other reason, the
Disciplinary Authority may ask the
Inquiry Officer to record further evidence.
But there is no provision in Rule 15 for
completely
setting
aside
previous
inquiries on the ground that the report of
1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not
appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The
Disciplinary
Authority
has
enough
powers to reconsider the evidence itself
and come to its own conclusion under
Rule 9.

13. In our view the rules do not
contemplate an action such as was taken
by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It
seems to us that the Collector, instead of
taking
responsibility
himself,
was
determined to get some officer to report
against the appellant. The procedure
adopted was not only not warranted by
the rules but was harassing to the
appellant." (Emphasis supplied) and
allowed the appeal of K.R. Deb.

23. It can be seen from the
above that the normal rule is that there
can be only one Enquiry. This Court has
also recognized the possibility of a
further Enquiry in certain circumstances
enumerated
therein.
The
decision
however makes it clear that the fact that
the Report submitted by the Enquiring
Authority is not acceptable to the
disciplinary authority, is not a ground
for completely setting aside the enquiry
report and ordering a second Enquiry."

29. Though in the above judgment
this Court was interpreting a particular
rule but where there is no rule, it is all the
more necessary to first set aside earlier
enquiry before proceeding for fresh
enquiry. Thus, in view of the above legal
position and even otherwise on findings
as we have discussed in detail, the order
dated 2.6.2008 unsustainable and the
same is, accordingly quashed.

30. It is, however, left open for the
respondents to consider the reply, audit
report and vouchers submitted by the
petitioners in respect of the work against
which in the first inquiry report it was
found that Rs.44,194/- was spent. For rest
of
the
charges,
the
matter
stands
concluded and is not permitted to be
reopened.

31. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed to the above extent.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1370

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 42225 of 2014

Ravindra Kumar Singh & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S. Shekhar, Sri Prakher Tandon, Sri
V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sri Devendra Kumar, Sri
M.C. Tripathi

A. Civil Law-National Highways Act, 1956 -
Section 3-H (4) - Land Acquisition - Dispute
of share in Property - In the event any
dispute arose between parties in respect of
their
share
in
the
property
and
consequently
in
the
amount
of
compensation, it is obligatory on the
competent authority to refer the matter to
the Civil Court for the apportionment of the
shares of the co-sharers. (Para 20)
B. National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3GObject- Security against unnecessary and
protracted
litigation
-
Legislature